All of Roxton's Comments + Replies

The Fallacy of Gray

Point taken, but I would advance the view that the popularity of such a categorical point stems from the fallacy. It seems to be the backbone that makes deontological ethics intuitive.

In any event, it's still clearly an instance of begging the question.

But my goal was to cast a shadow on the off-topic point, not to derail the thread.

2Larks8yI'm not sure it is; that government involves coercion is a substantive premise. Unfortunately, people who agree with the off-topic point can hardly accept such behaviour without response.
The Fallacy of Gray

Doesn't "coercive violence is bad" beg the question in a way that would only be deemed natural if one were implicitly invoking the noncentral fallacy?

1Larks8yNo, many people think coercion qua coercion is wrong - for example, philosophers of a Kantian bent, which is very common in political philosophy.
What is moral foundation theory good for?

Except you totally do so imagine, because you could only get away with such dickish social signaling if my communication style was unacceptable in a group context.

What is moral foundation theory good for?

How many people that self-identify as liberal would agree that liberalism is "the erosion of the presumption of a privileged ontology"?

<1%. And that must be accepted as a criticism. However, I would contend that individual liberal battles can readily be perceived as fitting comfortably in this framing.

Also, in what way does the Ten Commandments rely on a "privileged ontology" that human rights does not?

I imagine you will agree that the concept of "putting presumptions under erasure" is not something that expresses ... (read more)

1RichardKennaway9yIt appears to me that you are not someone who expresses themselves well in dialog. I shall refrain from imagining that anyone agrees with me.
What is moral foundation theory good for?

Cogently put.

The "erosion of the presumption of a privileged ontology" sounds more like postmodernism,

An accurate characterization, although I don't share your negative associations with the term.

and "a creative gut context informed by predictive models and evidence", when decoded, seems to mean "inventing the conclusion you want and selecting theories and evidence to fit it".

A reasonable decoding, which means I conveyed the point poorly. The core idea is that you recognize no particular framing as "special."... (read more)

What is moral foundation theory good for?

I feel like I'm getting a communal "No. Just.... no." here.

5RichardKennaway9yQuite. The "erosion of the presumption of a privileged ontology" sounds more like postmodernism, and "a creative gut context informed by predictive models and evidence", when decoded, seems to mean "inventing the conclusion you want and selecting theories and evidence to fit it". This is an excellent example of the sort of bullying that constitutes postmodern discourse. You don't even say whether you agree with any of this or not, but it doesn't seem intended satirically.
What is moral foundation theory good for?

I believe you misframe the liberal position.

Liberalism can be meaningfully defined as the erosion of the presumption of a privileged ontology. Rational debate is possible, to the extent that it serves to undermine privileged ontologies.*

When somebody raises a proposal, the argument that might follow typically involves participants inferring and teasing out the relevant premises, and then arguing them.

In contrast, Liberalism tries to identify the ontologies underpinning the premises, and then encourages you to recognize that ontology as arbitrary, have the... (read more)

0Jayson_Virissimo9yHow many people that self-identify as liberal would agree that liberalism is "the erosion of the presumption of a privileged ontology"? I would guess < 1%. Also, in what way does the Ten Commandments rely on a "privileged ontology" that human rights does not?
6Roxton9yI feel like I'm getting a communal "No. Just.... no." here.
LW's image problem: "Rationality" is suspicious

If you want to promote the republishing of LW articles, I think you'd be more inclined to drop the Singularity/Futurism bits from the tagline. They're alienating and off-message, I think.

Also, when I try to share an article on G+, G+ pulls the following text for summary: "Less Wrong Discussion Future of Humanity InstituteSingularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence. Main. Posts; Comments. Discussion. Posts; Comments. Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refin...". No good.

1jsalvatier10yYou may consider posting to the LW issue tracker [http://lesswrong.com/lw/6mg/call_for_volunteers_clean_up_the_lw_issue_tracker/] .
0katydee10yThis is an important point.